In 2013, the governor temporarily suspended its standardized tests, a move then-Education Secretary Arne Duncan called illegal. Low-performing schools faced few, if any, consequences for several years as the state paused its accountability system. And the state is now sparring with the federal government again about how to identify struggling schools under ESSA.

Sacramento or Washington, D.C. shouldn’t dispatch “little busy bodies to run down the halls and chide the teachers,” Democratic Governor Jerry Brown, who spearheaded this philosophy, has said.

Education news. In your inbox. Sign up for our email newsletter

Education news.In your inbox.

It’s amounted to a decade-long rebuke of the federal government — and drawn sharp criticism from civil rights groups, who worry that the state hasn’t done enough to track whether money meant for disadvantaged students actually reaches them, among other issues.

But some recent evidence gives a boost to what supporters call the “California way.”

A key worry of the civil rights groups has been that the state’s funding system, enacted under Brown in 2013 and which has given more districts more to spend and allowed them to decide how to use it, hasn’t benefited California’s most disadvantaged students.

One study — released last week through the Learning Policy Institute, a left-leaning education think tank — found otherwise. The additional money led to notable gains in high school test scores, and students whose schools got an extra $1,000 per pupil each year in grades 10 through 12 were 5 percentage points more likely to graduate. Those gains were just as large, or larger, among poor students and students of color.

Another study, released by University of California, Berkeley researchers last summer, tells a similarly positive story. It found that elementary and middle schools in California districts that received extra funding scored higher than similar schools in districts that just missed out on additional dollars. In this case, Latino students saw the biggest gains.

The studies are consistent with a larger body of research showing that students benefit when schools have more money to spend. But it’s notable here that vulnerable students are still benefiting from these policies without much state oversight.

Education news. In your inbox. Sign up for our email newsletter

email icon

Education news.In your inbox.

Email Address:

Select Edition:

Never miss a story. Like us on Facebook.

Education news. In your inbox. Sign up for our email newsletter

email icon

Education news.In your inbox.

Email Address:

Select Edition:

Meanwhile, a survey released last week by the University of Southern California showed strong support among parents for California’s colorful approach to displaying school performance. California uses a dashboard that includes a school’s ratings on a number of metrics, and doesn’t sum them up with a single score or letter grade.

This display has drawn criticism from advocacy groups and newspaper editorial boards as confusing. But when shown a sample dashboard, about three in four parents surveyed said it was easy to understand and seemed like an effective way to communicate a school’s performance.

The three reports are hardly the final word on these issues. The same poll that showed support for the school dashboards also found that parents who thought schools had gotten worse in the past few years outnumbered parents who said they’d gotten better. Other research has shown that tough accountability rules can boost test scores, particularly in math, and have long-run benefits for students. It’s also possible California’s funding boost would have been even more successful with stronger accountability rules.

Districts may soon have to tell the state more about how they’re spending money, as concerns about transparency have prompted Brown to recently propose new reporting requirements.

Ryan Smith, the executive director of Education Trust – West, a civil rights and education group, is still not sanguine about the state’s policies.

“Moving the ball down the field five yards is not the equivalent of winning the Super Bowl,” said Smith. He pointed to a report from his group that applauded the increase in spending in high-poverty districts but found disparities in students’ access to counselors, librarians, and advanced courses.

“When we ask the state what are the supports that you’ll be providing to low performing schools, they continue to kick that can down the road,” Smith said. “We still have an accountability system that’s removing safeguards for black, brown, and poor children.”

Scott Roark, a spokesperson for the California Department of Education, said the state is implementing a tiered support system for struggling districts that ranges from providing workshops and classroom coaches for teachers to “more intensive interventions.”

“California has moved away from a ‘sanction and punish’ approach to accountability that was implemented under the No Child Left Behind Act,” he said.

The board voted 6-0 in favor of reducing the amount of money the district is seeking, backing off the number members approved two months ago.

Board member Kelly Bentley said many school districts around the state have asked taxpayers for more money.

“We all own property in IPS. None of us want to see our taxes go up,” she said. But, she added, “I am confident that it’s money that’s going to be well spent, and it’s money that is necessary.”

Instead of pulling back spending on teachers and school staff, the district is making the new plan work by adjusting revenue expectations, said Chief Financial Manager Weston Young. The proposal is built on the assumption that state revenue will increase 1 percent each year, and the district will no longer hold as much money in reserves, he said.

Education news.In your inbox.

Never miss a story. Like us on Facebook.

Education news. In your inbox. Sign up for our email newsletter

Education news.In your inbox.

Email Address:

Select Edition:

“We are still committed to our students through our compensation for teachers and the wraparound services that serve those kids,” Young said.

Reducing the request could help build enthusiasm for the tax increase, which has not gotten much vocal community support. Instead, the referendums have been met with some concern over the size of the ask. But even though they have pared down their plan, district leaders will still need to persuade voters in May to raise their own taxes.

Superintendent Lewis Ferebee said the new plan is a balancing act between what taxpayers can bear and the cost of providing the level of service that families need. Ultimately, he said, the tax increase would pay dividends by helping the district prepare students for college and careers.

“This is one of those situations where you pay now or you pay later,” he said.

The move cut the potential tax increase for homeowners in IPS to $0.58 per $100 of assessed value, down from the initial proposal of $0.73. For taxpayers with houses at the district’s median value — $123,500 — the new plan would increase property taxes by $17.70 per month for operating expenses and $5.54 per month for building improvements, according to the district.

The referendum the board reduced would pay for operating expenses, such as teacher salaries, and under the new request, it would raise about $66 million per year for eight years. That’s down from the initial request of about $92 million per year.

Under the new plan, about $49 million of the money raised each year would go to staff pay, while the remaining $17 million would help pay for services and supplies, regular maintenance, and transportation.

A second measure, which was not changed, would pay for about $200 million in improvements to buildings, primarily safety updates such as new lighting and door security. Both measures are expected to go before voters in May.

Education news. In your inbox. Sign up for our email newsletter

Education news.In your inbox.

“The school system needs more revenue,” O’Connor said. But “we think that’s high.”

Superintendent Lewis Ferebee’s administration is working on coming up with a revised proposal, district chief of staff Ahmed Young confirmed. But officials have not yet finalized how much the amount might be trimmed or what services would be reduced to bring down the price tag.

The revelation comes on the heels of stinging public criticism leveled against the district for asking for such a large tax increase. On Wednesday, Indiana State Board of Education member and Indianapolis resident Gordon Hendry slammed IPS’ plan to raise taxes during a state board meeting.

The original plan, which was approved by the state for inclusion on the May ballot less than a week ago, includes a measure that would raise up to $92 million per year for operating expenses such as teacher salaries and one that would pay for up to $200 million in improvements to school buildings.

If voters signed off on the operating referendum, their property taxes would rise by as much as $0.59 on each $100 of assessed value, while the capital referendum would raise $0.1384 per $100 of assessed valuation.

Education news. In your inbox. Sign up for our email newsletter

email icon

Education news.In your inbox.

Email Address:

Select Edition:

Never miss a story. Like us on Facebook.

Education news. In your inbox. Sign up for our email newsletter

email icon

Education news.In your inbox.

Email Address:

Select Edition:

The board will not alter the referendum that provides money for building improvements, O’Connor said. But it will consider changing how much it seeks for operating expenses, the part responsible for the bulk of the tax increase.

It’s important to the city that the school district is successful, said Mark Fisher, chief policy officer for the Chamber. There also is general agreement that the district needs more funding, he said. But the group is waiting to hear more from the administration about how the money will be spent.

“It’s a large amount,” Fisher said. “Is this the right amount?”

Tony Mason from the Indianapolis Urban League raised similar questions.

“IPS definitely requires more support to serve the vast needs of its diverse student population,” Mason wrote in a statement. But the district must make the case in detail for the substantial amount it is requesting.

“IPS needs to be mindful of the already existing and unique tax burdens of those living in the IPS district,” he added.

The district has said the referendums are essential because of declining federal, state, and local revenue. According to the district, the operating referendum would pay for special education services, transportation, and regular maintenance. But the bulk of the money, 72 percent, would help pay regular raises to teachers. The referendum to pay for improvements to school buildings would fund updates such as new lighting and door security.

If it passed, the original operating referendum would increase the district’s annual revenue by nearly $3,000 per student. By comparison, a referendum passed in Washington Township in 2016 raised annual revenue by less than $600 per student.

When the initial plan was announced in December, Ferebee told Chalkbeat that political considerations were not used to determine the amount of the referendums.

“We didn’t arrive at this number based on what we thought would be politically appropriate and soothing, but what we actually need to continue to thrive as an organization,” Ferebee said at the time.

But it appears the political challenge of asking voters to dramatically raise their own taxes is more salient for the board.

Board members have privately heard concerns from constituents about the size of the referendums, O’Connor said. He said the district also needs to present more detail to taxpayers about exactly how the money would be spent.

Because $92 million per year is the estimated maximum amount the district could raise if the measure passes, it was always a ceiling, said Young. After the board voted to pursue the initial proposal, the district has continued to do “due diligence.”

“It’s an evolutionary process,” he added.

On Tuesday, school board member Kelly Bentley told Chalkbeat that reducing the amount the district is seeking could help increase the chance that voters approve the referendums and reduce the burden on taxpayers.

“I believe strongly that we are asking no more than what we need,” Bentley said. “But I would rather be successful than not successful in the referenda.”

Correction: February 15, 2018: This story has been corrected to attribute the statement from the Indianapolis Urban League to Tony Mason.